Navigate:

DISCLOSE Act fails again in Senate

Charles Schumer and others said the issue deserves continued attention. | AP Photo

The White House released a statement after the measure failed expressing President Barack Obama’s disappointment.

“This bill should have received broad, bipartisan support,” the statement read. “Unfortunately, Republicans chose to block it. Instead of standing up for the American people, Republicans stood with big banks and oil companies – special interests that certainly don’t need more clout in Washington. “

Text Size

-

+

reset

Outside spending groups, including super PACS, party committees and groups such as corporations and unions have spent a total of $175.6 million so far this election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. A large portion of that money goes toward sponsoring election ads.

“Perhaps Republicans want to shield a handful of billionaires willing to contribute nine figures to sway a close presidential election,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on the floor before the vote. “If this flood of outside money continues, the day after the election 17 angry old white men will wake up and realize they’ve just bought the country. That’s a sad commentary. About 60 percent or more of these outside dollars are coming from these 17 people.”

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who voted for the bill, said the debate isn’t going away.

“I think it’ll come back and come back again,” Nelson said. “It is in the best interest of this country going forward.”

No one on either side of the debate expected the bill to pass.

“I don’t think given where we are in the election cycle, there is any realistic expectation for them to pop over,” Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center, said of the Republican support needed to advance the bill. The group is one of several pro-disclosure organizations advocating for passage.

David Keating, president of the Center for Competitive Politics, who testified at hearings against the bill, said it would keep nonprofits from sponsoring issue-advocacy ads because in an election cycle they would be lumped in with election ads.

“There are plenty of ads that are lobbying related,” Keating said. “You would have to go through all the red tape for those. It’s being billed as an election disclosure bill, but it covers way more than that.”

the bill, which would require unions, nonprofits and corporate interest groups that spend $10,000 or more during an election cycle to disclose donors who give $10,000 or more.

Why on earth cant we agree on just this. Obviously this is not how the system was intended. And both sides dont like it. Democrats complaining about Koch brothers. Republicans complaining about Soros even though he last donated significantly in 2004. Republicans complaining about unions. Democrats complaining about corporations. Republicans even complaining during their primaries of disadvantage from a few hijacking the process. Republicans complain about Obama fundraising. Obviously, he has to fundraise to catch up an still cant. Since both sides dont like the big money. Why dont they just at least agree to bring it to the open and let it all hang out the bright light of day? Let the chips fall where they may and the better ideas win. Only a cheat will not agree to this simple step.

President Obama likes to blame everything on George W. Bush, but apparently he does not discriminate. This week, Obama obliterated one of the best things Bill Clinton ever did.

Conservatives don’t look back fondly at the Clinton years, and for good reason, although he looks decent compared to what we have today. But you have to give credit where it’s due: Clinton did some good things, and one of the best – at the prodding of Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress to be sure – was the signing of the 1996 welfare reform act.

The bill “ended warfare as we know it” as Clinton liked to say, and introduced stringent requirements that able-bodied welfare recipients either work or spend time preparing for work. It was a good idea and it reversed the expansion of the welfare rolls for the first time in decades. The key was that states were not allowed to waive the work requirements. Congress wrote this section of the law very carefully because they knew that some state bureaucrats would try to do just that.

Now the work requirement is gone, not because new legislation was passed to remove it, but because Obama once again decided the law does not apply to him.

On Thursday, the Obama Administration issued a directive allowing states to waive the work requirement – and only the work requirement. The directive explains: “The Secretary (Kathleen Sebelius) is interested in using her authority to approve waiver demonstrations to challenge states to engage in a new round of innovation that seeks to find more effective mechanisms for helping families succeed in employment.”

In fact, Sebelius has no authority to grant such waivers. The bill makes that very clear by limiting the allowance of waivers to one section only, and it very explicitly excludes the work requirement from that section. This was not an accident. The power of the bill, and of the whole idea, was that it would only succeed if the work requirement was mandatory for all states and for all recipients.

And there’s no need for the Obama Administration to “find more effective mechanisms.” Welfare reform has been a roaring success.

Of course, that depends how you define success. It only took four years after the bill had eliminated the old Aid for Families with Dependent Children program, and replaced it with the new Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, for poverty to plummet while welfare caseloads were cut in half, according to a report from the Heritage Foundation.

So why would Obama get rid of the work requirements? I can think of two reasons – one ideological and the other political.

The ideological reason is that liberals hated welfare reform from day one. They predicted it would push millions more children into poverty. When it did exactly the opposite, their hatred was not abated in the slightest. They are convinced that the only way for people to get by is the reliability of a check from the government, and to them, the notion that you would replace this security blanket with this strange thing called a job is simply absurd.

The political reason is cynical but simple. People who depend on the government to be their primary benefactor vote Democratic, and if their dependence is permanent, then they vote Democratic for life. Even if these folks don’t vote, expanding the welfare rolls will allow for the expansion of the programs all across the country – and the newly hired welfare bureaucrats will vote Democratic, because their subsistence is dependent on the government as well.

Ronald Reagan liked to say that he defined compassion not by how many people we help, but by how many people no longer need our help. Obviously, and not surprisingly, Barack Obama’s view is exactly the opposite. The more people who depend on government largesse, and the easier it is for them to get it and keep getting it, the more job security he creates – for himself.

And he’s even willing to grant waivers that the law expressly forbids in order to make it happen.

I wonder what Bill Clinton thinks about what Obama did to one of his most positive achievements. After all, Clinton (who was re-elected the same year he signed welfare reform) worked with a Republican Congress to pass this bill, to cut the capital gains tax and to balance the budget for several years running.

Now the first Democratic president to follow him is undoing all of the above, or trying to. It’s almost enough to make you wonder, when Clinton walks into that voting booth in November and closes the curtain behind him . . . what he will really do.

What's the problem? Is President Obama's enemies list not long enough? WSJ did an article showing how Obama's administration was intimidating Romney's large donors. Talk about Nixonian.....Obama is using Nixon's play book. I loved how Axelrod attempted to project Nixon on to Romney...what a farce!

The Dems shot themselves in the foot. The fact that some GOP donors have already been targeted just cements the idea that if people had to give their name out then they open the doors to being targets. The more bitter politics get the less likely that a bill like this will ever pass.

Most recent government "largesse" was when frmr. GOP Pres. George W. Bush signed / executed TARP before he left office to BAIL-OUT : the Big Banks, Wall Street, Financial Services firm, Hedge Fund Managers and the very, very wealthy who stood to lose, billions/trillions of dollars.

Currently the elected GOP House / Senate are attacking the Dodd / Frank Bill attempting to tighten financial regulations to prevent another 2008 Financial Collaspe that that swept the globe nearly toppling the European Union and independent country's financial systems. The effects of 2008 financial collaspe crippled the United States, 14 Trillion dollars of personal wealth was wiped out - Pensions, Retirements Funds, IRA aocounts and 15 million jobs began to be destroyed.

The super wealthy have profited well, and continue to pour in endless streams of political donations per recent SCOTUS decision. Uncheck power over our government by secret money, contributed by a handful of people! Let us let some sunlight into elections, and lets see who is trying to influence our United States democracy....

The super wealthy have profited well, and continue to pour in endless streams of political donations per recent SCOTUS decision. Uncheck power over our government by secret money, contributed by a handful of people! Let us let some sunlight into elections, and lets see who is trying to influence our United States democracy....

---------------------

These people here cheering on secret donors from god knows where don't want sunlight, JHA, because then they could see themselves in the mirror. And they can't stomach that.

The Democrats are giving a pass to Big Labor. This bill is another attempt by Democrats to keep Republicans from evening the playing field. Just like Big Labor, Democrats can't compete on an even playing field.

I can't stand republicans. "They'll use it as a political tool to go after us!" .... Seriously? And exactly WHY would you be worried about that if you were actually doing the RIGHT thing for the American people?